War Profits Taint The Greedy Hands Of More Than 25% Of Members Of The U.S. House and Senate!

Info on Personal Financial Disclosure.
Since the passage of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 members of Congress and certain members of their staff have been required to file personal
financial disclosure(SIC) documents with the Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate depending on which House of Congress they belong to.

All Member's of Congress must file personal financial disclosure documents....

...Personal financial disclosure documents are not housed online in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. To obtain them directly from
Congress a person would be required to travel to Washington, D.C. and procure them from either the Legislative Resources Center (House) or the Office
of Public Records (Senate).

Financial Disclosure Data Base.
It is difficult to gauge what a lawmaker is worth based on what they file because the disclosure forms do not require exact values. Instead, the
lawmaker reports the range of value into which an asset, for example, falls. As the values increase, the ranges get broader.

It appears that even though they must file these reports, no attempt has been made to make them accessible. The second link goes to a site that
maintains a data base of the disclosures.

LMAO @ John Kerry being the 3rd highest paid war-profiteer...And this is the same guy who muttered what a bunch of crooks and liars the dubya admin
were? Not that I disagree, but talk about the pot calling the kettle black...This type of stuff is straight out of mafia-type activity. In fact, it
makes the mob look tame. Total profiteering off of mass death and destruction.

And people wonder why the US isn't pulling out of Iraq?
Self explanatory... good read, S&F'ed.

The Republicans are neck-deep in the Oil Industry, they couldn't stand having such an anti-business, anti-Western individual sitting atop the
world's second largest reserve of oil, so they took him out.

Great thread. Thank you for bringing this issue up, as it certainly is a serious one. I wholeheartedly agree with the contention that there is
little difference between Republicans and Democrats. We have no real choices when it comes to voting in this country. The powers that be, mostly
through their control of the mainstream media, have convinced us that it is hopeless and a waste of our vote if we support a third party candidate.
They've made the issue of perceived electability a major factor in our decisions in the voting booth. The American people need to realize that
unless you are writing in "Mickey Mouse", then NO vote is a wasted vote. "Electability", or at least the degree of electability force-fed to us
by the media, should not be a factor in your decision to support a candidate. You should vote on the issues and for the person you think that
actually has your best interests, and the best interests of this country, in mind. Their party affiliation should be of little-to-no concern, unless
of course they are running as a Nazi or are behind bars!

Now, on the other side of the coin, I have to apply some common sense and reason to this issue. We are criticizing members of Congress for having
investments in major companies that are awarded defense contracts. I'm willing to bet that most people who have a diverse stock portfolio are
invested in companies that receive defense contracts. I don't think it's incredibly suspicious that anyone, an elected official or otherwise, would
have stock in major companies such as Boeing, Raytheon, GE, etc. In fact, I'm sure that just about every major company that does any kind of work
with regards to defense, computers, aerospace, etc., has received defense contracts in the past few years.

You also have to consider that when they say 25% of congress has money invested in companies that received defense contracts, it may not necessarily
be in the form of straight-up stocks. It could be that their 401k's have some of these stocks, or they have mutual funds that consist of some of
these large companies' stock. It would be an entirely different story if members of congress who made decisions on rewarding contracts purchased
stock in a particular company with inside information that they would be receiving a contract, or with the intention of giving them that contract.
That should be something that would be easily proven if it were the case. I'm sure the amounts of stock, as well as the dates purchased, held by
members of congress is a matter of public record and could be researched.

But I suppose that's neither here nor there, as it is sometimes impossible to gauge a person's intent without an admission or irrefutable evidence.
So maybe what we should be discussing is how to resolve the issue. How do we make it so that this kind of thing cannot happen? I don't think it
would be fair for us to bar members of congress from investing in the stock market. That's just not fair. So how can we regulate such investment?
Should politicians be restricted to "blind trusts" where they have no say and no knowledge of which companies they are invested in during their time
in office? Or should they be limited to investing in popular mutual funds, bonds, etc? I think that no matter what restrictions are in place, there
will always be opportunities for corruption. I think it's a matter of limiting those chances, while still allowing politicians to invest in the
market in some form. Preventing a fair level of investment could severely restrict the amount of people willing to run for office, which would hurt
us in the long run as a country. We want the best man/woman for the job. And usually the best man/woman for the job is someone who is intelligent
and successful in life. And those kinds of people almost always have investments. We couldn't possible expect them to dump or freeze everything
before entering office. Could we?

Something else that I just considered is how many government officials have money in the market through shell companies, friends, relatives, etc.,
that we don't even know about or could never even track. I'm sure there are offshore accounts, fictitious names, etc, that politicians and their
co-conspirators use to generate money while distancing themselves from it. So, in reality, this 25% figure is probably much higher, especially if it
doesn't take the holdings of immediate family members of politicians into consideration.

But what the heck do I know? This certainly isn't my area of expertise...

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
The below paragraph sums up to a tee what I've been trying to get across to people STILL desperately clinging to the "bi-partisan" hoopla and
brainwashing---There is NO DIFFERENCE between these parties anymore---They ALL serve the same interests! The ENTIRE system has been completely
corrupted and polluted with greed-mongering, special interest serving Elitists that will continue on with the destruction and looting. NONE of these
people will change this destructive course, because they are all involved directly, or serving those that are!

We live in a world where those who participate in the arena of 'investment' can rise to obscene wealth or plummet into obscure oblivion. Our public
servants are selected in part, due to the successes evidenced by the acquisition of wealth(1). It seems highly incongruous that we should expect
their investment portfolio's should somehow cease to be as successful and or profitable as they always were simply because they serve the nation.

I must say in my defense, this is no endorsement of their profiteering(2). I find it absolutely contrary to my sensibilities that they should stand
to gain so much from this conflict, as it compromises their ability to remain objective (as millions of dollars is want to do to anyone in today's
world of diminishing wealth.)

We have a systemic conundrum here. Accepting, as most true Americans do, that all people are created equal, hence as deserving of success as they can
manage honorably, I would be hard pressed to mandate that a rich person cease to be rich or secure his or her wealth, simply because they serve me and
my nation. I cannot expect that such wealth as their influence can (and does) generate should be necessarily be restricted out of hand.

I believe the best we can hope for, within the confines of our constitution, is that the public successfully reserves the right and power to, upon its
whim, accurately assess the exact details of both the means and the methods by which a public servant financially benefits (or even suffers) during
the execution of their offices. Thus, the nation at a minimum, will not suffer the disgrace of being 'used' unwittingly by unscrupulous public
servants; while simultaneously guaranteeing that should such an abuse take place, those guilty will certainly not enjoy the benefit of the immunity
borne of invisibility.

(1) This does represent an ideological problem on it's own, because it has evolved into the unwritten maxim that you can't run for office unless
you are rich (rich=successful).

(2) I believe that, because of the responsibility to the constituency, and the collective will of the nation, one cannot view this investment
activity as anything other than 'profiteering'. When Mr and Mrs Jones do this for their retirement they are not profiteering; when someone rich and
in positions of influence at the policy level do it, it is.

We the people, MY ASS, there is them the rich and powerfull that make the rules and and control our lives. If you look back at history at the people
that are president on down are all connected either by blood or personal friends. So how can we say we elect these people I have never voted for
someone who was'nt pushed on me. So I am not shocked to hear that they are tied to this. I cant see any difference in having a dictator or king or
queen to rule because really there is no difference, every aspect of our lives are being controlled, if they want us to die so they can make a buck,
just smile and say when.

Nice post! What really astonishes me time and time again, even on here were I’d expect more free thinking. Is the level of ignorance or naivety
shown when posts like these are commented upon? Then, these same people will jump on another thread and actually debate about which presidential
candidate displays better qualities!!! For goodness sake these are the vile, mass murders in waiting, who will continue the world genocide, Drugs
control, population control and enslavement. The ‘winner’ of an election in the West, is the person who will be best placed to further the aims of
the elite controlling families.

So the reward for all the high placed profiteer is immunity from laws that may restrict their heinous activities and wealth to make them independent
from the monetary control that we the sheep have to endure.

I hope someone will prove me wrong on this assumption and look forward to releasing me from this perpetual frustration of the TRUTH!

It should come as no suprise to you that war means profit for the arms industry. It should also not surprise you that people invest in areas that will
make them money. I am really suprised though that only a little more than 25 percent of the House and Senate are guilty. I would have bet 90 percent
at least. If you knew war was coming and could not stop it, why not make a buck.

Indeed. The worst part about it is that these endlessly greedy ass-hats are going to profiteer themselves and the rest of the world into WWIII and
armeggeddon if this system continues as is. This HAS to stop, and we the people are going to have no other choice but to rise up as a nation and stop
it---For the sake of humanity's future. All of our very lives depend upon it IMO.

We need a total house cleaning. NO DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN POLITICAL OFFICE! Each is as corrupt and dishonest as the
other. Two sides of the same tarnished coin which should be tossed in the river with the King's tea. It is time for Americans to wake up and have a
new Revolution to finish what the first one started.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.